Every cloud has a silver lining. Lets face it, environmental and political motivations are not enough for most of humanity. They will not change for the better until the economics of the situation forces them too

Where the weather/wind conditions are reasonable - e.g. on Atlantic routes - fuel savings of about 27% can be achieved. On routes where the superior internal volume capacity of the WindShip can be properly utilised, 50% fuel savings are possible.

Trucking and shipping are a problem. Now they have to focus on trucking. Trucking is based on cheap oil, which may soon be no more. Railroads are great, cause you can electrify them and you're not dependent on any fuel. Nobody's figured a good way to electrify trucks for now.

I'm hoping for a corresponding drop in the human and domesticated animal birth rate. I hope that we do not find another source of cheap fuel as this has resulted in a population explosion that needs to end.

Education certainly is one way of reducing population. However, the advent of cheap fuel is what started us on this unprecedented population boom due to the green revolution in agriculture and mechanization of farming. When the US government won't fund family planning and education in poor countries, I think we can safely say that we've missed the opportunity to educate. A smaller and more expensive food supply may be the only way we see a decrease in population growth. It won't be a pleasant way to happen but it appears that it'll be the only way in our current world - unless pandemics/epidemics make a dent.

As for animals, I was actually referring to domesticated agricultural animals. If they are too expensive to grow then maybe we'll see a decrease there as well.

When we discuss food and energy shortages, we need to keep in mind that the current consumption that feeds into the problems. I'm a bit mystified that people seldom discuss the curbing of population as a way to conserve fuel and food.

DV wrote:A smaller and more expensive food supply may be the only way we see a decrease in population growth.

Are you suggesting that starving poor people is a good means of population control? It really sounds that way, but I'm hoping it's just my mis-interpretation.

Regardless, I have to disagree. The countries with the smallest and most expensive food supplies tend to be the ones with the highest and growing populations. Wealthier countries with affordable food supplies, such as the USA and most European countries have declining populations. The US population is growing mainly by immigration, not native births. The immigrants are from the countries with limited and expensive food supplies.

beforewisdom wrote:The only way to reliably reduce the population is to educate people and give them good economic opportunities.

You're right on here Beforewisdom. People with good economic opportunities, decent housing, cars etc. willingly self-regulate their reproduction in order to maintain their lifestyle. Poor people have little pleasure in life other than their families and so are willing to keep reproducing.

Education and economics go hand in hand as well. It's amazing how many people, even here in the USA, are ignorant of their own bodies and reproductive systems. I have met adult women who did not know that urine and babies come out of separate openings! How scary is that?

You are right the poor have kids because there is little else for them to have. It isn't the only problem with the poor. They have more kids to overcome the high mortality rates that exist in third world countries. The rural poor in those countries also do it for labor so that there is enough labor for the family to produce necessities and survive. Lastly, they have more kids so that their children will be able to afford to keep their parents alive when they are too old to work.

Its all economics and the economy is driven by affordable energy so I don't think working on the population first will help.

Even so, women in the 3rd world are not stupid and they want the best for their families. Various groups have had great success on population issues doing little more than teaching poor women to read.

michaelhobson wrote:The countries with the smallest and most expensive food supplies tend to be the ones with the highest and growing populations.

Logic dictates that sooner or later there will be a population peak and the population will decline. Nature's work, a species over-reproduces until it exceeds its food resources, thus killing itself.

I agree that education is the answer but what is more likely to occur first? Third world poverty increases exponentially and I doubt they can become educated and break long standing traditions of having as many offspring as possible before food supplies run dry.

Troy wrote:Third world poverty increases exponentially and I doubt they can become educated and break long standing traditions of having as many offspring as possible before food supplies run dry.

There is plenty of food now, and millions more acresjust in this country that aren't being used. Our government is still paying farmers NOT to grow food, and as long as you see people with lawns, there is no food shortage.